9 ms·

This seems like a lost opportunity for a full fledged YouTube competitor. I know video isn't trivial, but if you're going for it, might as well go big. There a

by rsoto 8y ago

This seems like a lost opportunity for a full fledged YouTube competitor. I know video isn't trivial, but if you're going for it, might as well go big. There are lots of YouTube creators that have been demonetized and are resented at them. It seems like a great opportunity to start capturing little pieces of that huge pie. Almost every YT creator that I follow has been hit with a few copyright strikes, most of them are not even fighting back anymore. Why not offer those «selected» videos a new home? For them, even if on Imgur they earn $1 dollar, it's $1 dollar they are not seeing from YouTube. With some luck they can start to get some niche YouTubers, and after that, a few years later you have a full YT competitor. Sadly, what we get is 30 second max limit, maybe good enough to be another Vine.

notatoad 8y ago
YouTube doesn't just demonetize for the fun of it. They do it because advertisers are threatening to pull their ads off the service entirely if there's a risk of being placed against offensive content. What makes you think any youtube competitor would have better luck convincing advertisers to run ads against the same content youtube has demonetized?
- AndrewUnmuted 8y ago
  It’s possible to monetize video in ways other than submitting to ad-tech.
  - polishTar 8y ago
    YouTube has that too. YT has a paid premium service, purchasable creator sponsorships, superchat, a tickets/merchandise shelf, and an influencer marketing platform (through YT-owned Famebit). These form alternative revenue streams for many creators and are available even if the content isn't running ads.
    - josteink 8y ago
      > YT has a paid premium service Only for people in the US. That essentially means you lose out on 90% of the world market.
  - notatoad 8y ago
    Of course it is. And the best ways to monetize videos beyond ad-tech is product placements, in-video sponsorships, and Patreon. Which demonetized YouTube creators still have access to, which gives them very little reason to switch to a different platform. The best way for a platform to monetize videos is ad-tech. And nobody is better at ad-tech than google.
- josteink 8y ago
  > They do it because advertisers are threatening to pull their ads off the service entirely if there's a risk of being placed against offensive content. But who decides what is offensive? Are videos about gun safety "offensive"? Until recently the answer for that would have been "no", but not so any more. The terms for what is considered "acceptable" is getting smaller and smaller all the time, people get less exposure to things which challenges their views, making them even more likely to be "offended" by even more harmless stuff, even facts. If you look for right-wing channels, anti-religious channels (which includes criticism of Islam!) or worse, anti-feminist channels (you know, people who would rather have equality over specially honed women's-rights) which has been demonetized by YouTube, you will find they have been hit across the board. If you however look for left-wing, pro-immigrant or feminist channels... I challenge you to find a single one which has been banned or demonetized for being "offensive". These views are for some reason not affected by this increasingly narrow definition of what is "acceptable", despite many of them being openly sexist and racist. With certain platforms completely dominating the market (like Facebook & YouTube), having non-leftists either banned or treated as second-class citizens can be considered quite undemocratic. People who previously could engage in a reasonable debate in a diverse environment (as in diversity of thought, not some token superficial "diversity" in forms of race or sex) are now being excluded, pushed out, into what certainly will be non-diverse echo-chambers. What the long-term effects of such actions are can be hard to predict, but I doubt they will be good.
_asummers 8y ago
Why not use Vimeo?
- pejrich 8y ago
  lol.
polishTar 8y ago
Explicitly catering to illegal content (or legally disputed content) is one of the worst things any established company could do. Catering to legal but "demonetized" content won't land you in jail at least, but probably still isn't a great business decision. YouTube already allows advertisers to advertise on most risky inventory (aka "demonetized" videos), they just rarely do so. It's unlikely that advertisers will want to pay more for the same category of video just because it's on a different platform. A startup that chooses to adopt this approach is going to have a hard time attracting creators since they'll have an equal or (most likely) worse monetization narrative than YouTube for that class of content. IMO a business that wants to enter the online video market would be best served by focusing on product differentiation. This is probably why imgur is trying to do some interesting experimentation with gif-like restrictions.
- chatmasta 8y ago
  The solution is a new monetization mechanism. That’s why steemit seems to be gaining some momentum IMO
- josteink 8y ago
  > Explicitly catering to illegal content (or legally disputed content) You mean like all the demonetized gun safety videos? Your biggest mistake here is assuming that Google only demonetized things which are offensive, questionable or illegal. Most demonetized channels carry no such things. Their biggest problem is usually that they are not "on board" with the ideologies currently pushed by the radical political left.
  - slivym 8y ago
    Google demonetized videos that their sponsors wanted demonetized. Now, I don't know, but I find it rather far fetched that Google's large sponsors are exclusively part of the 'radical political left', but even if they are - they're the ones spending the money. Imgur could try and court those video makers to produce for example gun safety videos on imgur, but to make a profit they have to also attract advertisers. Pushing a set of content that the advertising have already found unattractive seems like a bad way of bringing those advertisers across.
bitL 8y ago
YouTube doesn't make any money. Google literally subsidizes the whole platform for over a decade already. No one can compete with that. Maybe some crypto-based video platform where people give away some of their CPU/GPU cycles while watching videos might do it, but the blockchain complexity might be already beyond making that profitable either for the rate of new video appearances YouTube deals with. Not mentioning costs of running them through some filter to catch ugly and universally illegal things before they go live.
- yeukhon 8y ago
  I am sorry, what? Youtube makes money.
  - skinnymuch 8y ago
    I assumed [s]he meant to say YouTube doesn’t make a profit. Or at least doesn’t seem to make a profit as a stand-alone entity. Not completely sure if that’s true but it seems like it still is or is unknown.
    - GFischer 8y ago
      I actually googled that recently (in response to this announcement) and they seem to be break-even or possibly profitable. But yes, they were unprofitable for a long time. They don't disclose their separate financials so no-one not related to Alphabet knows for sure.
pavs 8y ago
You highly underestimate what it would take to run Youtube competition. The technical infrastructure and the amount of money that needs to be thrown at it is truly out of reach for 99.9% of the company out there. There are literally a handful of companies who have the technical chops and the money to start a Youtube competitor. After more than a decade of investment, youtube only recently started becoming profitable. So even if a company has the money and the technical chops to start a youtube competition, they really need to think twice before going through this much trouble.
- 0x00000000 8y ago
  I think Amazon is the only one who can do it. They definitely have the capital, infrastructure, expertise, and already own Twitch
  - pavs 8y ago
    Most likely, but Amazon's reputation with customer service they will do a piss poor job at it. I don't see Amazon doing it. To be fair I don't see any reasonably sane company going after Youtube, there is no market, there is no momentum. There are isolated niche scenarios and it's not worth the money or time for large companies.
    - TylerE 8y ago
      Good thing for Amazon then that the only tech company with worse customer support is....Google.
  - post_break 8y ago
    I think porn hub could do it.
    - Intermernet 8y ago
      I initially thought that you were making a comment in jest, but then I realised that pornhub actually already have one of the world's largest and most reliable video streaming platforms. You're right.

by rsoto 8y ago

notatoad 8y ago

YouTube doesn't just demonetize for the fun of it. They do it because advertisers are threatening to pull their ads off the service entirely if there's a risk of being placed against offensive content. What makes you think any youtube competitor would have better luck convincing advertisers to run ads against the same content youtube has demonetized?

AndrewUnmuted 8y ago
It’s possible to monetize video in ways other than submitting to ad-tech.
- polishTar 8y ago
  YouTube has that too. YT has a paid premium service, purchasable creator sponsorships, superchat, a tickets/merchandise shelf, and an influencer marketing platform (through YT-owned Famebit). These form alternative revenue streams for many creators and are available even if the content isn't running ads.
  - josteink 8y ago
    > YT has a paid premium service Only for people in the US. That essentially means you lose out on 90% of the world market.
- notatoad 8y ago
  Of course it is. And the best ways to monetize videos beyond ad-tech is product placements, in-video sponsorships, and Patreon. Which demonetized YouTube creators still have access to, which gives them very little reason to switch to a different platform. The best way for a platform to monetize videos is ad-tech. And nobody is better at ad-tech than google.
josteink 8y ago
> They do it because advertisers are threatening to pull their ads off the service entirely if there's a risk of being placed against offensive content. But who decides what is offensive? Are videos about gun safety "offensive"? Until recently the answer for that would have been "no", but not so any more. The terms for what is considered "acceptable" is getting smaller and smaller all the time, people get less exposure to things which challenges their views, making them even more likely to be "offended" by even more harmless stuff, even facts. If you look for right-wing channels, anti-religious channels (which includes criticism of Islam!) or worse, anti-feminist channels (you know, people who would rather have equality over specially honed women's-rights) which has been demonetized by YouTube, you will find they have been hit across the board. If you however look for left-wing, pro-immigrant or feminist channels... I challenge you to find a single one which has been banned or demonetized for being "offensive". These views are for some reason not affected by this increasingly narrow definition of what is "acceptable", despite many of them being openly sexist and racist. With certain platforms completely dominating the market (like Facebook & YouTube), having non-leftists either banned or treated as second-class citizens can be considered quite undemocratic. People who previously could engage in a reasonable debate in a diverse environment (as in diversity of thought, not some token superficial "diversity" in forms of race or sex) are now being excluded, pushed out, into what certainly will be non-diverse echo-chambers. What the long-term effects of such actions are can be hard to predict, but I doubt they will be good.

_asummers 8y ago

Why not use Vimeo?

pejrich 8y ago
lol.

polishTar 8y ago

Explicitly catering to illegal content (or legally disputed content) is one of the worst things any established company could do. Catering to legal but "demonetized" content won't land you in jail at least, but probably still isn't a great business decision. YouTube already allows advertisers to advertise on most risky inventory (aka "demonetized" videos), they just rarely do so. It's unlikely that advertisers will want to pay more for the same category of video just because it's on a different platform. A startup that chooses to adopt this approach is going to have a hard time attracting creators since they'll have an equal or (most likely) worse monetization narrative than YouTube for that class of content. IMO a business that wants to enter the online video market would be best served by focusing on product differentiation. This is probably why imgur is trying to do some interesting experimentation with gif-like restrictions.

chatmasta 8y ago
The solution is a new monetization mechanism. That’s why steemit seems to be gaining some momentum IMO
josteink 8y ago
> Explicitly catering to illegal content (or legally disputed content) You mean like all the demonetized gun safety videos? Your biggest mistake here is assuming that Google only demonetized things which are offensive, questionable or illegal. Most demonetized channels carry no such things. Their biggest problem is usually that they are not "on board" with the ideologies currently pushed by the radical political left.
- slivym 8y ago
  Google demonetized videos that their sponsors wanted demonetized. Now, I don't know, but I find it rather far fetched that Google's large sponsors are exclusively part of the 'radical political left', but even if they are - they're the ones spending the money. Imgur could try and court those video makers to produce for example gun safety videos on imgur, but to make a profit they have to also attract advertisers. Pushing a set of content that the advertising have already found unattractive seems like a bad way of bringing those advertisers across.

bitL 8y ago

YouTube doesn't make any money. Google literally subsidizes the whole platform for over a decade already. No one can compete with that. Maybe some crypto-based video platform where people give away some of their CPU/GPU cycles while watching videos might do it, but the blockchain complexity might be already beyond making that profitable either for the rate of new video appearances YouTube deals with. Not mentioning costs of running them through some filter to catch ugly and universally illegal things before they go live.

yeukhon 8y ago
I am sorry, what? Youtube makes money.
- skinnymuch 8y ago
  I assumed [s]he meant to say YouTube doesn’t make a profit. Or at least doesn’t seem to make a profit as a stand-alone entity. Not completely sure if that’s true but it seems like it still is or is unknown.
  - GFischer 8y ago
    I actually googled that recently (in response to this announcement) and they seem to be break-even or possibly profitable. But yes, they were unprofitable for a long time. They don't disclose their separate financials so no-one not related to Alphabet knows for sure.

pavs 8y ago

You highly underestimate what it would take to run Youtube competition. The technical infrastructure and the amount of money that needs to be thrown at it is truly out of reach for 99.9% of the company out there. There are literally a handful of companies who have the technical chops and the money to start a Youtube competitor. After more than a decade of investment, youtube only recently started becoming profitable. So even if a company has the money and the technical chops to start a youtube competition, they really need to think twice before going through this much trouble.

0x00000000 8y ago
I think Amazon is the only one who can do it. They definitely have the capital, infrastructure, expertise, and already own Twitch
- pavs 8y ago
  Most likely, but Amazon's reputation with customer service they will do a piss poor job at it. I don't see Amazon doing it. To be fair I don't see any reasonably sane company going after Youtube, there is no market, there is no momentum. There are isolated niche scenarios and it's not worth the money or time for large companies.
  - TylerE 8y ago
    Good thing for Amazon then that the only tech company with worse customer support is....Google.
- post_break 8y ago
  I think porn hub could do it.
  - Intermernet 8y ago
    I initially thought that you were making a comment in jest, but then I realised that pornhub actually already have one of the world's largest and most reliable video streaming platforms. You're right.